|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 30. May 2007 14:09
Daniel,
Excuse me for intruding. quote:
If you know of any improvement of a specific biological design, please cite it.
All of the genetic diseases for example;
The genetic anomalies; Huntington's Chorea, Fragile X Syndrome, Williams Syndrome, Down Syndrome, as well as; Wisdom teeth, apendix, noses too big for all practical purposes on some people, bald heads with hairy backs, albinism, etc.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 31. May 2007 04:25
IF:
quote:
All of the genetic diseases for example;
The genetic anomalies; Huntington's Chorea, Fragile X Syndrome, Williams Syndrome, Down Syndrome,
What specifically would you change about the genetic system in order to optimize it? Would you change the polymerase? How would you change it? Would you change DNA? RNA? mRNA? rRNA? tRNA? The anticodon? Perhaps you think the ribosome is not optimal and you can suggest a better method of codon to amino acid translation? Maybe you'd completely scrap protein synthesis and start over?
Perhaps the problem is with recombination? How would you improve upon that? Or upon embryonic development? Maybe you'd eliminate sexual reproduction? What's your alternative?
You see, it's not enough to point to anomalies, if it's your position that biological systems are not optimal, you must propose better systems.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 31. May 2007 06:42
Daniel, quote:
You see, it's not enough to point to anomalies, if it's your position that biological systems are not optimal, you must propose better systems.
You are exactly right! I wish I would have realized as a young one that the scientific method was the way to go in solving these "anomalies"! Many did and many, thankfully, do buckle down and dig into all of the mysteries of life that cause the pain and suffering that many of the anomalies cause to those afflicted and even more to those who love them. Many have found temporary relief for those who are suffering and many are working to improve these anomalous systems. I, sadly, am not right now!
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 31. May 2007 07:30
Daniel,
Quote: OK, let's take the mammalian oxidation system. This system utilizes the unique properties of the oxygen and carbon atoms to their fullest potential. It also pushes the limits of hydraulics and the physical limitations of cell structures in order to force oxygen to the utmost regions of the body and to extract it's CO2 byproduct. Those who have studied it extensively will tell you that it's hard to envision any other system that could work better. If you know of any design improvement for the mammalian oxidation system, please provide it.
You don’t appear to understand some of the basic design concepts and methodologies used systems designers and engineers and that are readily applied to biological designs. At least one key part of any design process and any design evaluation process involves 1) defining the goals, purpose or functions of the design, 2) identifying and measuring the limits or limitations of a design, and 3) finding methods of changing the design to change or extent the limits. This is all standard design methodologies.
If these methods were to be applied to the mammalian oxidation system, we would have no difficulty in identifying limitations to such a system. It is a relatively trivial matter to identify and create situations where such systems breakdown and fail. Extreme environmental conditions, significant increases in size, stress and leakage in the ‘plumbing’ are all situations where the oxidation system could be demonstrated to fail. It might also be noted that ‘failure of the oxidation system’, in one form or another is a major cause of death in mammals.
Once specific limits or limitations are identified for an existing design in a system such as a mammalian oxidation system, it is generally not particularly difficult to come up with at least a theoretical design to extend the limits or limitations. Simple examples in the oxidation system would include ‘addressing size limitations by using multiple pumps’ or addressing limitations imposed by environmental conditions (extreme cold for example) by adding insulation.
The key point here is that there are well established scientific engineering and scientific systems design methodologies for evaluating what I am calling efficiency and optimization. By any rational standards, designs in biological systems are incredibly sophisticated and incredibly efficient and reflect extremely high levels of intelligence. However, in the formal scientific sense, biological designs are not optimal.
Biological systems can achieve what can be labeled ‘optimization or near optimization within defined constraints’. If the set or range of conditions under which a system is tested are limited, and if the set of possible options or variations or designs is limited’, then the option or design being evaluated may be 100% efficient and the best available option.
Lack of optimization appears to be one of the essential or defining characteristics of intelligent causation. It is, or at least used to be, believed that the relationships addressed by predictive physics theories always occurred exactly as predicted (in the absence of outside interference). Intelligent causal relationships, those addressed by teleological theories, appear to always have dynamic limits or limitations. Any time a ‘current form of intelligent causation’ is evaluated, it will always be possible find limits or limitations in the efficiency of the intelligent causation. On the other hand, current limits or limitations are never immutable or unchangeable. Given a current limt associated with a current design or form of intelligent causation, it always be possible for the intelligent causation or design to be changed to change the limit.
This is somewhat of an aside, but if a scientist is to formulate a hard science predictive theory, then that theory must be based on type or class of causal relationship that meets all the requirements of the scientific paradigm. Physics theories are all based on a single type or class of causal relationship. Stochastic theories are all based on recognized type or class of causal relationship. Teleological theories are all based on a specific type of causal relationship involving intelligent causation. Causal relationships used in teleological theories all involve intelligent causation and all exhibit the dynamic limits property.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 31. May 2007 08:56
IF,
Quote LE: If you evaluate competing theories using hard science methodologies, then well defined hard science teleological or design theories will always win over peer review theories.
Quote IF: Could you provide an example or reference/link that supports this assertion?
I am not aware of any literature in the life sciences that addresses formal testable predictive theories or that recognizes formal teleological theories. I have talked to at least one academic who works with teleological theories, but I don’t know where, if or how he gets his analysis published.
It is not particularly difficult, although it can be time consuming, to work up a demonstration. You can, I believe, start with essentially any published life science theory.
The first step is to express the peer review theory in a testable predictive format. In most instances, in my experience, it is possible to express theories from the literature in a non-teleological testable predictive format. However, the resulting predictive theories are generally trivial (apply in only specific already observed conditions). It is often obvious that the theories will not stand up to testing under novel and unexpected conditions.
Essentially all behaviors and designs in biological systems are purposeful or goal directed, dynamic, adaptive, and involve intelligent causation. To falsify any non-teleological theory addressing living systems, you simply need to find novel situations where 1) the fixed behavior described and predicted by the non-teleological theory will be non-adaptive or not goal compatible and 2)where it is likely that the biological system will, under at least some conditions, successfully adapt to the novel conditions.
Based on personal experience, it is usually relatively easy to find ways to falsify non-teleological theories and replace them with intelligence based teleological theories. It is generally extremely difficult to find individuals with the technical skills and integrity to evaluate this type of formal test.
If you have a non-teleological life science theory that you think will stand up to formal falsify and replace testing, I will be glad to discuss it.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 31. May 2007 09:19
IF,
Quote LE: But the same basic life cycle pattern of increasing problem solving efficiency (intelligence) followed eventually by deterioration or corruption of problem solving efficiency appears to apply to all human social organizations.
Quote IF: To what do you attribute the causes of the deterioration? What can we do to prevent it?
These are the questions that got me involved in the question of intelligent causation and teleological theories.
Human social behavior can be expressed as, modeled as, or reduced to large complex sets of decisions. Human social behavior is good or successful if people make good or successful or efficient or ‘intelligent’ decisions. By contrast, human social behavior will be bad or unsuccessful if humans make bad or unsuccessful or inefficient or unintelligent decisions. In business, where this type of question has been formally studied, there is evidence that a very large percentage of failures of business organizations can be attributed to bad decision making. In quite a number of instances, failure can be attributed to a single bad decision.
The basic concepts used here are that 1) humans exhibit intelligence, 2) decision making is a central or basic form of human social behavior, 3) decision making involves or requires intelligent causation or intelligence, and 4) greater intelligence or more efficient intelligent causation produces better decisions and lesser intelligence or less efficient intelligent causation results in lower quantify or less successful decision making. These concepts are apparently considered either controversial or incomprehensible by many.
Anyway, if you start with the premise that failures of social organizations are due to bad or inefficient or unintelligent decision making, then the way to prevent failures is to identify or anticipate bad or unintelligent or inefficient decisions and replace them with more efficient or more intelligent scientifically engineered decisions or decision processes. Simple and obvious-right?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 31. May 2007 10:39
LE, quote:
Quote LE: But the same basic life cycle pattern of increasing problem solving efficiency (intelligence) followed eventually by deterioration or corruption of problem solving efficiency appears to apply to all human social organizations.
Quote IF: To what do you attribute the causes of the deterioration? What can we do to prevent it?
These are the questions that got me involved in the question of intelligent causation and teleological theories.
What is the best teleological theory you've come across? quote:
Human social behavior can be expressed as, modeled as, or reduced to large complex sets of decisions. Human social behavior is good or successful if people make good or successful or efficient or ‘intelligent’ decisions. By contrast, human social behavior will be bad or unsuccessful if humans make bad or unsuccessful or inefficient or unintelligent decisions. In business, where this type of question has been formally studied, there is evidence that a very large percentage of failures of business organizations can be attributed to bad decision making. In quite a number of instances, failure can be attributed to a single bad decision.
All of that looks like the kind of things that the Sante Fe Institute studies. quote:
The basic concepts used here are that 1) humans exhibit intelligence, 2) decision making is a central or basic form of human social behavior, 3) decision making involves or requires intelligent causation or intelligence, and 4) greater intelligence or more efficient intelligent causation produces better decisions and lesser intelligence or less efficient intelligent causation results in lower quantify or less successful decision making. These concepts are apparently considered either controversial or incomprehensible by many.
Segregating the subjective from the objective aspects in all 4 of those points is obviously difficult and wonderfully contentious as this particular blog and website demonstrates. If you've read things like "GEB" (Hofstadter), the various Chaos Theory books, and throw in Wolfram's tome it seems to support Hegel's Dialectic theory which I suspect may have inspired some of the creators of this website! If it did I tip my hat in appreciation to all involved. quote:
Anyway, if you start with the premise that failures of social organizations are due to bad or inefficient or unintelligent decision making, then the way to prevent failures is to identify or anticipate bad or unintelligent or inefficient decisions and replace them with more efficient or more intelligent scientifically engineered decisions or decision processes. Simple and obvious-right?
Exactly correct! Nowadays, that whole process is called education.
Also, quote:
If you have a non-teleological life science theory that you think will stand up to formal falsify and replace testing, I will be glad to discuss it.
Okay, but I need some time, hopefully, folks like the obviously frustrated aiguy (who started this blog and it may now seem to have wandered off target a little but I don't think this digression is completely irrelevent) will step in more quickly.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 31. May 2007 14:19
IF,
Quote: What is the best teleological theory you've come across?
An interesting question that suggests I haven't gotten across the concept of teleological theories. Individual teleological theories are not always particularly interesting. Classes, sets or families of teleological theories tend to be more interesting. Human decision making, as an example, can be analyzed in terms of the family of teleolgocial theories of the general class "With defined constraints, humans select the option, from the available options, most compatible with the relevant goal, based on the best available information." Knowling that this class applies to all human decision making, scientist would begin the analysis of a particular decision or group of decisions by formulating a simple general teleological theory and then gradually refine the theory using the scientific paradigm. After a number of iterations, a competent researcher would probably have a sufficiently precise theory to make a near optimal decision.
Teleological theories, like all predictive scientific theories, are a part of the scientific analytical problem solving processes. Theories are not really 'expressions of truth or explanations of how the universe operates.
While there are supposedly only a limited number of major theories in the physical sciences, there are a lot of different ways the theories are used. In the life sciences, there are a much much larger number of theories, but each theory or group of theories may be used only to solve a single problem.
Too many people want science and scientific theories to simply replace mystical beliefs. Just as some myth suggests might suggest animals being produced by some magic performed by some ancient god, people seem to want science to explain the creation of animals by some magic such as Darwinism or RM&NS.
Real science is not a substitute for magical explanations. Instead, real science is a formal set of processes that allows people to reliably and efficiently find solutions to certain types of practical problems. A predictive scientific theory is more like a shovel or a plow used to solve practical problems than it is like a magic wand.
To me, the interesting teleological theories have the form "The goal of world peace (or eliminating poverty) is more likely to be achieved by selecting option A than option B".
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 31. May 2007 15:26
LE,
quote:
IF,
Quote: What is the best teleological theory you've come across?
An interesting question that suggests I haven't gotten across the concept of teleological theories. Individual teleological theories are not always particularly interesting. Classes, sets or families of teleological theories tend to be more interesting. Human decision making, as an example, can be analyzed in terms of the family of teleolgocial theories of the general class "With defined constraints, humans select the option, from the available options, most compatible with the relevant goal, based on the best available information." Knowling that this class applies to all human decision making, scientist would begin the analysis of a particular decision or group of decisions by formulating a simple general teleological theory and then gradually refine the theory using the scientific paradigm. After a number of iterations, a competent researcher would probably have a sufficiently precise theory to make a near optimal decision.
Is there an actual example available somewhere?
quote:
Teleological theories, like all predictive scientific theories, are a part of the scientific analytical problem solving processes. Theories are not really 'expressions of truth or explanations of how the universe operates.
Then are you using the term theory in the more informal way as found in the last 4 definitions at dictionary.com (4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory 5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles. 6. contemplation or speculation. 7. guess or conjecture)?
quote:
Too many people want science and scientific theories to simply replace mystical beliefs. Just as some myth suggests might suggest animals being produced by some magic performed by some ancient god, people seem to want science to explain the creation of animals by some magic such as Darwinism or RM&NS.
I think of Science as a methodology that should lead to the best guess out of the total guesses available and based only on available facts and/or evidence.
quote:
To me, the interesting teleological theories have the form "The goal of world peace (or eliminating poverty) is more likely to be achieved by selecting option A than option B".
That's still a little vague to me! What is a good practical or current example? Who is using it?
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 31. May 2007 19:55
ISCID VAGUE TERM OF THE MONTH AWARD
The count for the month of May is closed. The winner of the ISCID prize for the most repetitions of an ill-defined phrase goes to ...
(audience waits with baited breath)
LifeEngineer, with "teleological theories".
(rapturous applause from those few of the audience that have not slumped down into a state of complete catatonia)
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 01. June 2007 05:50
INTELLIGENCE AND DESIGN
PBS had a show last night discussing the sophisticated engineering associated with raptors. They discussed and demonstrated numerous sophisticated engineered characteristics of modern jets are inferior copies of the much more sophisticated engineered designs raptors.
Scientists and engineers are wiling to admit 1) biological designs are in many if not most instances vastly superior to the best human designs, 2) the creation of human engineered designs is indisputably a product of human intelligence, and 3) there are currently no valid scientific theories that can explain how biological systems create complex biological designs. Yet despite what is known and demonstrated about the complexity and sophistication of biological designs, academic scientists refuse to even consider the possibility that goal directed, purposeful intelligence is involved in the creation of biological designs.
It is important to keep in mind that academic science rejects the idea that there might be a relationship between intelligence and biological design, not based on any scientific theories or scientific evidence. The bizarre position of academic science with respect to intelligence and design is based on ignorant superstitions and pseudo-religious beliefs. These beliefs and superstitions are so strong as to prevent academic science and academic scientists from dealing rationally with the issue of intelligence and design.
It would probably be much easier for most people to understand the views and arguments of academic scientists on the subject of intelligence and design if we pictured academic scientists in the costumes of witch-doctors or temple priests. The real science or hard science all supports the rather obvious existence of a relationship between intelligence and biological design. The opposition to the design science concepts is based on irrational superstition.
The only way design science concepts will ever be accepted is by rejecting the false authority of academic pseudo experts and insisting that differences be resolved with real open and independent testing of predictive theories.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 01. June 2007 07:27
IF,
Quote: Is there an actual example available somewhere?
Of course there are lots of practical examples of the use of these techniques. What is lacking is the ability of the academics groups like the Santa Fe Institute and aiguy’s buddies to understand the science involved.
You can find lots of examples of real scientists using scientific analysis of intelligent causation to solve practical problems. What you can not find in the literature are explanations of intelligent causation and discussions of the predictive theories used in the analysis.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 01. June 2007 08:47
LE,
quote:
You can find lots of examples of real scientists using scientific analysis of intelligent causation to solve practical problems.
Where?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 01. June 2007 11:05
LE,
quote:
PBS had a show last night discussing the sophisticated engineering associated with raptors. They discussed and demonstrated numerous sophisticated engineered characteristics of modern jets are inferior copies of the much more sophisticated engineered designs raptors.
How long did it take for each of the two systems to reach the point of comparison? quote:
Scientists and engineers are wiling to admit 1) biological designs are in many if not most instances vastly superior to the best human designs, 2) the creation of human engineered designs is indisputably a product of human intelligence, and 3) there are currently no valid scientific theories that can explain how biological systems create complex biological designs.
RM/NS? quote:
Yet despite what is known and demonstrated about the complexity and sophistication of biological designs, academic scientists refuse to even consider the possibility that goal directed, purposeful intelligence is involved in the creation of biological designs.
How about at the non-secular/private institutions of higher learning (or primary/secondary schools)? How about in the Theocratic governments' institutions? There is bound to be enough support -both financial and philosophical- somewhere to implement your view afterall, communist Russia implemented what was then called Lysenkoism against all the supposed better judgment of the rest of the "civilized" world!
The rest of your post reminds me of how hard it was for the current "scientific" view that is taught in the universities and public schools, and that you are arguing against, to take root in the world when the the many different theistic powers were in control all over the world. Check the history of the Cimento or The Royal Society and things like that to see what I mean. Actually the current view didn't really take hold in our educational institutions until relatively recently when the Pragmaticists rose to power right around the turn of the twentieth century.
[/QUOTE]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 02. June 2007 14:10
LifeEngineer:
quote:
If these methods were to be applied to the mammalian oxidation system, we would have no difficulty in identifying limitations to such a system. It is a relatively trivial matter to identify and create situations where such systems breakdown and fail. Extreme environmental conditions, significant increases in size, stress and leakage in the ‘plumbing’ are all situations where the oxidation system could be demonstrated to fail. It might also be noted that ‘failure of the oxidation system’, in one form or another is a major cause of death in mammals...
Simple examples in the oxidation system would include ‘addressing size limitations by using multiple pumps’ or addressing limitations imposed by environmental conditions (extreme cold for example) by adding insulation.
It seems that your knowledge of the mammalian oxidation system is severely limited and based on misconceptions and generalities. If you were to actually study the mammalian oxidation system you'd find that there is very little room for improvement. The modifications you propose would upset the delicate balances in the system and would cause more problems than they solved.
I'm no expert either, but I've been reading a book entitled "Nature's Destiny" by Michael Denton in which he lays out his teleological hypothesis for design with some very detailed analysis of how biological, terrestrial and cosmic systems are fully optimized for carbon based life with little or no room for improvement. Denton goes so far as to challenge anyone to falsify his hypothesis by showing that the earth, the cosmos, and biological systems are not uniquely and ideally fit for life.
One of the areas Denton focuses on is the oxidation system. He analyzes it in regard to the characteristics of the oxygen atom, including it's solubility and reactivity at various temperatures; the characteristics of the transitional atoms such as iron and copper (which manipulate the oxygen atom such that the end product is carbon dioxide - an innocuous gas); the properties of carbon dioxide and water; the bicarbonate buffer (without which we'd be awash in a sea of acidity); atmospheric pressure (which if varied too much would make breathing impossible); hemoglobin - which carries oxygen in the blood - for which he says "The design constraints are such that it is hard to see how the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood could be much increased."; and many other factors.
His conclusion is that the system must be pretty much exactly as it is in order to function.
It's always easy to stand back and throw out theoretical "improvements" for a system of which you are mostly ignorant. The problem is in actually implementing real improvements into the actual system. I'd suggest that you read Denton's book.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
